Birthing Parent Removed from Medical Forms

Eatslikeacat on 21/07/2022 - 18:27
Last edited 21/07/2022 - 21:39

I never thought I'd see the day when I'd side with Bill Shorten. However, he has now stepped in to stop the use of the term "birthing parent" in medical forms. See: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/21/bill-…

Mothers will continue to be called mothers.

The phrase "woke erasure" rings true. But I'm also nauseous that it was from the Daily Telegraph and that I have something in common with Katherine Deves.

Some things I support are:
1. Gay marriage. The right to be as miserable as straight married people lol
2. Passports and birth certificates reflecting gender identity.

Some things I don't support are:
1. Removing the option of "mother" and replacing it with "birthing parent" or "birthing person".
2. Biologically male transgender people who have the advantage of male puberty saying that it's discrimination if they can't compete with women.

Why is it suddenly discrimination when the minority don't have their way? If minorities want equal rights I'm all for it. If they want recognition I'm all for it. They deserve as much happiness as anyone else. But taking out the option to call someone a mother from a form is in my belief the thin edge of the wedge of woke erasure.

Is what Bill Shorten did discrimination?

Poll Options

  • 9
    Yes
  • 82
    No
Health & Beauty

Comments

  • SF3 on 21/07/2022 - 18:29
    -4

    Hi SlavOz.

    • spackbace on 21/07/2022 - 18:32
      +12

      Some things I support are:
      1. Gay marriage

      Couldn't be

      • SF3 on 21/07/2022 - 20:31

        Sorry brain fog.

    • brendanm on 21/07/2022 - 18:37
      +2

      slavoz is the only person who thinks mothers should be called mothers.

      Doubt.

    • iNeed2Pee on 21/07/2022 - 18:55

      SlavOz would be reading these forum posts pulling his hair out (if he has any).

    • randomusername2017 on 21/07/2022 - 19:20

      Levitool?

  • Iwantthebestprice on 21/07/2022 - 18:33
    +4

    Hooray to common sense from the Labour Party!

    • ThithLord on 22/07/2022 - 09:15
      +1

      Labor * just FYI

  • Motek Benzona on 21/07/2022 - 18:38

    Leftist minorities ramming their views down others throats is the new normal

    Thing is…even if they were middle aged white conservatives, in the main, those views are RUBBISH

    Super surprised Shortass did something about it…. Penny will be up him tonight, not literally of course, not her cuppa tea. Not that there is anything wrong with that

    • ThithLord on 22/07/2022 - 09:16
      -4

      oh my god however will you survive the onslaught of * gasp * a rarely-used identity document being changed in 2022!!

      • Motek Benzona on 22/07/2022 - 09:22

        I dont care if its used once a decade. MOTHERS give birth, not some gender confused MAN. Its a biological FACT. These minorities need to STFU and just live THEIR life as THEY please (which they are most welcome to do)

        • ThithLord on 22/07/2022 - 09:28
          -2

          Sure, dude…. but the choice was optional, you realise?

          • Gervais fanboy on 22/07/2022 - 09:56
            +3

            @ThithLord: How about a furry ?

            What if someone wants to be identified as a furry on his/her document.
            Where does your yearning for wokeness end ?

            • Motek Benzona on 22/07/2022 - 10:13
              -1

              @Gervais fanboy: In pure marxism where everyone conforms the minority dictate to the majority for some fake reason involving togetherness and society. That's my guess

              • Gervais fanboy on 22/07/2022 - 10:19
                -2

                @Motek Benzona:

                In pure marxism where everyone conforms the minority dictate to the majority for some fake reason involving

                Damn, I could swear that I heard JP talk about the exact same thing recently. How it were the deranged minorities that were singing Kumbaya, were able to lure enough people to be able to setup Communism, only to regret it later of course.

                Off topic - Congrats on buying Jesus.

            • ThithLord on 22/07/2022 - 10:30
              -1

              @Gervais fanboy:

              How about a furry ?

              Ye-old Slippery Slope fallacy. Love it.

              Anyway, are you pro-freedom or Pro-conformity? You mustn't be big on free speech either, I assume. Considering you don't want people to have free choice.

              • Gervais fanboy on 22/07/2022 - 10:51
                -1

                @ThithLord:

                Ye-old Slippery Slope fallacy. Love it.

                You are either not clued in or pretending that you are not clued in.
                We have already slipped on that ‘slippery slope’.
                There are actual communities of furries on Reddit (maybe other sites too, idk).
                (Coercing young kids-pedophilia-arrests, anyways discussion for another day)

                People who actually identify as one and demand to addressed as one. They want their passport pictures to be taken in their furry costumes, the pronoun drivel, the whole lot.
                I mean this is already happening,
                Again, my question to you, where do you think we should draw the line ?

                • ThithLord on 22/07/2022 - 11:19
                  -3

                  @Gervais fanboy: Oh my god, man.

                  You are either not clued in or pretending that you are not clued in.
                  We have already slipped on that ‘slippery slope’.

                  Show me where in Australia this is happening? You can't point to some far-away single instance of this bollocks happening and tell me that Australia is next.

                  Conservatives are the biggest snowflakes, I swear.

                  • Gervais fanboy on 22/07/2022 - 11:39

                    @ThithLord:

                    Show me where in Australia this is happening

                    There’s endless content of Australian furry groups on Discord Servers, Reddit…
                    You can read their material for yourself.

                    some far-away single instance of this bollocks happening and tell me that Australia is next.

                    Ahh okay, so is that not now how it works?
                    Didn’t this mother-birthing parent madness come from those ‘far away’ places.
                    I first hand saw those BLM protests during the Covid lockdowns, where they too in similar fashions vandalised the streets of Melbourne.
                    The far left movement in the West is for the most part, intertwined.

                    Conservatives are the biggest snowflakes

                    Yeah they can be, sometimes. We finally agree on something.

      • matbargain on 27/07/2022 - 19:21

        The world is great. I wish people would stop trying to change it.

  • Benoffie on 21/07/2022 - 18:42
    +15

    You know feminism has gone to sht when women are telling women that men can be women too and all those things that innately make women women are the province of men.

    How's that for fck the patriarchy?

    Idiots…

    • SlavOz on 27/07/2022 - 22:03
      +1

      They are literally awarding Woman Of The Year awards to men. After years of being told how important it is to recognise women seperately from the achievements of the patriarchy, we are now being told that men make the best women.

      Men are so good, they even make better women than women.

  • Ocker on 21/07/2022 - 18:52
    +14

    The need to officially remove such a definition just proves how screwed up our modern society is !!
    Personally, I am sick and tired of these vocal minorities forcing their own narrow minded view on the rest of society.

    • pharkurnell on 21/07/2022 - 19:19
      +1

      You have my vote.

      • spackbace on 21/07/2022 - 19:34
        +3

        You have my axe

        • Benoffie on 21/07/2022 - 19:45
          +1

          And my bow

  • SlowCarSlow on 21/07/2022 - 18:53
    +1

    Would you support those things if they were proven to provide a net benefit to Australia / society?

    • brendanm on 21/07/2022 - 19:01
      +10

      They don't.

    • AustriaBargain on 21/07/2022 - 19:21
      +5

      If it cost's biological women some of their rights, some of their visibility, some of their cohesive unity, then some of these demanded trans rights brings a net cost to Australia.

  • pharkurnell on 21/07/2022 - 19:19
    +13

    The world has got itself in a terrible mess with all this shit.

    • bobbified on 23/07/2022 - 10:37
      +2

      It's an obvious problem when no-one can give a definitive answer on what a woman is anymore…

      • SlavOz on 27/07/2022 - 22:06

        Politicians or government entities that refuse to define the term should be impeached as they are clearly lying. They've used the word woman and man countless times on record yet now they say they never even knew what it meant the whole time.

        Bunch of establishment liars. If you can't speak honestly to your own people, you should be barred from representing them.

  • AustriaBargain on 21/07/2022 - 19:20
    +6

    Trans rights should not trump the rights and dignity of females. Changing our language to remove references to females will harm millions of females in the long run, if we can't even mention them by name anymore. Also I find it really unsettling that on Reddit and Tumblr and stuff young lesbians are being told they will be called transphobic if they refuse to have sex with trans women (that is people with a penis). And of course trans women in sports is a whole other issue and it's sad to see some male athletes saying that trans women should be allowed to compete with females, like Tom Daley, when as a man it will never affect them because competing against transmit (females who identify as men) will never put them at a disadvantage. It's pretty clear that the kind of rights and privileges that many trans people want are unacceptable and should never be ceded to them. Trans "rights" should not come at the cost of biological women's fragile gains.

  • sharkyoz on 21/07/2022 - 19:25
    +3

    I've been called a mother a few times before, certainly dont think birthing parent would've had same effect lol

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 22/07/2022 - 11:04

      Was someone accusing you of try to reproduce with someone who had a proven track record of producing offspring?

  • sjj89 on 21/07/2022 - 19:36
    +5

    People should just have the option on a birth certificate to be referred to as ‘mother’ or ‘birthing parent’
    Simple

    • brendanm on 21/07/2022 - 19:43
      +8

      It's not necessary, as only women can give birth. A mother can only be a woman. It is something unique to women, that men cannot do.

      • Presence on 21/07/2022 - 19:59
        +3

        It is something unique to women, that men cannot do.

        The world has gone nuts. See below, a trans man (who looks like a man) complaining because pregnancy doctors though his wife was the one having a baby and not him. Sure, go ahead and do whatever you want, but stop complaining when people are confused about a MAN HAVING A BABY. Its just absolutely crazy.

        https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/kim-thought-he-c…

        • whatwasherproblem on 22/07/2022 - 23:40
          +3

          Yeah stuff like that is where the wokies lose me. Imagine being upset that doctors, who have spent their entire careers (and, collectively as a profession, have spent most of the time that humanity has even existed) helping female mothers give birth? Imagine getting legit upset that those doctors just assume that it's the female giving birth. How dare they?!

          The woke crowd always want to act like they're already reached their progressive 'utopia' in which it makes sense to be offended. But they haven't reached it, and it doesn't make sense yet. Sure, maybe 50 years down the track in the absolute clownshow world that @Quantumcat wants us to reach it'll be common enough for non-women to be the "birthing parent" that you basically have to guess. However, we're not there yet so the FtM getting mad that the doctor didn't tell the guy to get up into the stirrups is just ridiculous. It's lunacy and it doesn't win them friends when they act like this.

      • Gervais fanboy on 21/07/2022 - 20:13
        -3

        Totally agree
        But Imagine having to explain that as if it were Rocket Science.

        Then there’s the pacifists like @Sjj89 who want to play along with this madness to appear ‘nice and inclusive’.
        This is the exact pseudo science that got us here in the first place.

      • merriweather on 28/07/2022 - 21:19

        You can have two mothers dude

    • Eatslikeacat on 21/07/2022 - 21:39

      That's no enough for some. They want to have 'mother' removed.

      • sjj89 on 21/07/2022 - 23:45
        -1

        That’s genuinely, no one.

        Who cares what people want to do with their own selves.

        People are always so libertarian until something someone else does conflicts with their opinion.

        “Man” and “Woman” are social constructs, and do not equal biological “male” and “female”.

        It’s pretty damn simple.

  • Quantumcat on 21/07/2022 - 20:11
    +8

    If it is a couple made up of two women, it is a bit mean to call one the mother and one not the mother, as they would consider themselves both mothers of the baby. The term birthing parent makes sense in that case. It doesn't have anything to do with any trans issue.

    • Gervais fanboy on 21/07/2022 - 20:51

      It doesn't have anything to do with any trans issue.

      Well, the whole base of the argument from the trans/liberal community is that using ‘mother’ is discriminatory because anyone can given birth.
      So they find it discriminatory to men, trans men and the whole spectrum of make belief genders out there.
      What you have said is an argument to aid this madness with some logic but that’s not the actual argument that’s being made out there in the real world.

      • Quantumcat on 21/07/2022 - 20:55
        -1

        Do you have any evidence of that? What I've seen of the transphobic community is that they try to cast lots of things as being a conspiracy theory against them by trans people (which never are).

        And what harm does it do to you anyway? Why do you care? It is an issue for people not of your gender with other people also not of your gender.

        • Gervais fanboy on 21/07/2022 - 21:09
          +5

          transphobic community

          This is a very common metric used to silence dissenting voices.
          Its very unfair to call people transphobic for merely asking questions or challenging the bits that don’t make sense to some.

          Btw here’s your links

          https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/anu-researchers-suggest-chang…

          https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4167632/Don-t-call-…

          And what harm does it do to you anyway? Why do you care?

          Those are some legit questions and I respect you for asking them.
          Because Ofcos, why do I even care enough to have an opinion on this subject ? If someone’s not trans or a member of the LGBTQ community why do they care at all..

          Well, we live in a shared society where anyone’s allowed to have a wide ranging set of opinions but there can only be one definite objective truth.
          If you distort that reality, cracks start appearing and madness ensues.
          If the government and private sector allows these dysphoric beliefs to be the norm, they’ll eventually become the truth. As much as I want people to have free will and be happy, it can’t be contingent on a false reality.
          I am only 26 and have no kids but I’m starting to see the enforcing of these untested, unverified ideas being lumped over our unassuming kids from early ages. And that really troubles me.

          • Quantumcat on 22/07/2022 - 10:03
            -1

            @Gervais fanboy:

            If the government and private sector allows these dysphoric beliefs to be the norm, they’ll eventually become the truth.

            They are the truth, society just hadn't let trans people be themselves until recently. It is like gay people, they didn't just magically appear in the 60s and 70s. There have always been gay people, but for most of history they've had to hide it and pretend to be something they're not. You are on the wrong side of history here. Maybe you'll realise it in 20, 30, or 50 years. Or maybe you won't, you'll be like one of those elderly very racist people who are still pro segregation and slavery or whatever.

            • Gervais fanboy on 22/07/2022 - 10:41
              +1

              @Quantumcat:

              They are the truth, society just hadn't let trans people be themselves until recently. It is like gay people, they didn't just magically appear in the 60s and 70s

              Deliberately or not, you are trying to muddy the waters with your statements.
              I didn’t challenge the existential existence of actual trans and gay people.
              I don’t have their actual lived experiences but I have enough humility and imagination to understand how when it comes to their sexuality, someone else might feel differently to me.
              Relating to the context, I said ‘dyshoric’ in the sense of people believing that all genders can give birth. That’s it.

              Btw on that topic, you with your lack of integrity only replied to a small section of my comment even though I had addressed all of your earlier points in my comment.
              You just won’t admit that the narrative from the LGBTQ community is that saying ‘mother’ is wrong because they find it discriminatory to other genders. You falsely stated otherwise in your comment above but you wouldn’t at any cost alter from that position coz thats who you are.

              Or maybe you won't, you'll be like one of those elderly very racist people.

              I asked you politely to stop with the slander.
              You first invent a lie by misquoting me and then you build your tall buildings on top of them.
              I have been nothing but be polite to you, even though I have seen you do the opposite to me and so many others for the time I have been here..
              For someone that talks about ‘inclusivity’ like you do, you are a very hateful person.
              Like, where’s my protections ? What are you doing to make me feel inclusive ? Coz the way you speak and slander, I don’t feel soo accepted.

              still pro segregation and slavery or whatever.

              I am half black/half Indian you ####
              Brought up in a third world country and only came to this great country six years ago..
              Not everyone who agrees with you is a ‘very racist’.

              • Quantumcat on 22/07/2022 - 12:02
                -1

                @Gervais fanboy: Racist is an example of something that was acceptable in say the 1920s and very not acceptable 50-60 years later. It will be the same with transphobia, you can get away with it now but you will be the extreme minority in 50 years unless you change your views.

                In the 1920s-60s there were people fighting for change against the majority sentiment, and they eventually won and made being inclusive be the majority view. If the word "woke" existed then, people fighting for inclusivity would have been labelled as such by the people who were resistant to change.

                Your views are similar to people that wanted segregation in that you "aren't denying they exist" and "they can get education just not near me please". You are saying you acknowledge they exist but can they please do their existing somewhere else where you don't have to see them.

                You might not understand it now as you are in the middle of your own mind and have difficulty seeing outside of it but hopefully that will adjust with time, so in 50 years you won't be like those elderly people with extremely inappropriate views for the time that they're currently in (but were ok when they were young).

                • Gervais fanboy on 22/07/2022 - 12:50

                  @Quantumcat:

                  It will be the same with transphobia, YOU can get away with it now but you will be the extreme minority

                  How am I a transphobic, I don’t care if you dodge my other points.
                  But please answer me this.

                  If the word "woke" existed then, people fighting for inclusivity would have been labelled as such by the people who were resistant to change.

                  I think you misunderstand the term ‘woke’ or atleast its cultural inception that was made to be ironic and not literal.
                  Coz you have just equated the woke mob from today to the civil/human rights activists from the past.
                  Woke is referred as a categorisation of people who act/imitate the virtuous because they think they will become the virtuous.
                  Where people propose ideas, based on ideologies rather than on science or atleast some critical thinking.
                  For example - There’s people that think Maths is racist because apparently blacks seem to struggle with it, whites invented it. Something along those lines. Now this is (i think) ‘clearly’ wrong and absurd. Eventhough at this point I am slightly scared to find out your take on it would be but I digress..
                  So the ‘maths is racist’ mob is a clear case of the woke mob. Please playing the virtuous for the sake of it. It’s Black and white.

                  Don’t compare the crazy ideas from today to the good ideas of today/past to legitimise them all equally.

                  they can get education just not near me please. you acknowledge they exist but can they please do their existing somewhere else where you don't have to see them.

                  Slander never ends.

                  You know what, it doesn’t even matter what I might say to you anymore. You are a hateful person who’ll judge me the way you want to judge me.
                  It’s a shame that you live in this prism of - he doesn’t agree with 100% of my beliefs, he must be a racist, transphobic… I’m tired.

    • ozhunter on 21/07/2022 - 21:05
      +4

      it is a bit mean to call one the mother and one not the mother

      How about birth mother and other "mother" ?

      • Quantumcat on 21/07/2022 - 21:06
        +1

        That would be fine. OP doesn't want anything other than "mother" and "father" though.

        • Gervais fanboy on 21/07/2022 - 21:15
          +4

          So that’s it ? You had no other issues with with this whole thing ?

          So just for that one little technical complication, which would only potentially arise amongst less than 1% of the total population, we need to change our normal long running selection criterias of addressing the mother to something more basic like ‘birthing parent’, just so it doesn’t hurt someone’s feelings ?

          How is that not crazy…

          • Quantumcat on 22/07/2022 - 07:00

            @Gervais fanboy: How is it not crazy to do things in a way that includes everyone, if it comes at a cost to nobody? If something excluded you, you would probably care. Try to learn to have some empathy.

            • Gervais fanboy on 22/07/2022 - 10:11
              +2

              @Quantumcat:

              How is it not crazy to do things in a way that includes everyone, if it comes at a cost to nobody

              We are breeding a culture of constant victims, going through life to assume offence rather being inflicted with some.
              You are clearly a smart guy/gal but i hope you’d be willing to draw the line at some point.

              If something excluded you, you would probably care

              I don’t wanna go into my life story coz I hate the idea of seeking my peers sympathies. But I have been excluded and discriminated all my life.
              Only to learn the actual innate nature of human beings and how it can never be changed, only temporarily tamed with other detrimental consequences. How encouraging victimhood is the most harm we could levy on others.

              Anyways off topic - what’s your take on compelled speech - forced pronoun adhering, in Canada ?
              Do you atleast find that a bit over the top?

              • Quantumcat on 22/07/2022 - 12:08
                -3

                @Gervais fanboy:

                I have been excluded and discriminated all my life

                So you've become like the bully who endures hell at home so inflicts it on others to make themselves feel better? Or the man that got beaten by their father so he beats his own children, because if he had to deal with it then they shouldn't get a cushy childhood either?

                • Gervais fanboy on 22/07/2022 - 12:24

                  @Quantumcat:

                  So you've become like the bully who endures hell at home so inflicts it on others

                  You can’t help yourself, can you ?
                  Quote/Refer me to the occasion where I bullied someone…

                  Or the man that got beaten by their father so he beats his own children, because if he had to deal with it then they shouldn't get a cushy childhood either

                  Mate, I’m not making generalisation like that about you… Now I didn’t call you a blue haired cuck, did I ?
                  Chill out, you are taking this discussion into a territory that you wouldn’t in the real physical reality. Enjoy your anonymity.

              • Chandler on 22/07/2022 - 12:51
                -1

                @Gervais fanboy:

                We are breeding a culture of constant victims

                How? We're talking about changing the field on a form. Sounds to me like the ones playing victim are the ones crying about the change…

                But I have been excluded and discriminated all my life.
                Only to learn the actual innate nature of human beings and how it can never be changed, only temporarily tamed with other detrimental consequences. How encouraging victimhood is the most harm we could levy on others.

                How is removing systematic exclusivity encouraging victimhood? Just because you've been excluded and discriminated all your life means that others should continue to be excluded and discrimated against? Of all people to be against changing "mother" to "birth parent"…

          • Chandler on 22/07/2022 - 12:35
            -1

            @Gervais fanboy:

            So just for that one little technical complication, which would only potentially arise amongst less than 1% of the total population, we need to change our normal long running selection criterias of addressing the mother to something more basic like ‘birthing parent’, just so it doesn’t hurt someone’s feelings ?

            How about we look at this the other way:

            Just so it does't change our normal long running selection criteria of addressing the mother, we can't move to something more basic like 'birthing parent' to include the little technical complication of less than 1% of the total population who's feelings are hurt because of it.

            I get your point about it being a change to suit a minority, but is the change really impacting the majority? No one is saying that you can't call the birthing parent "mother". We're talking about changing the field on a form to say "birthing parent" to account for the 1% that the use of "mother" does impact. Does the use of "birthing parent" instead of "mother" affect you or any other "mothers", more than it impacts the 1% that the use of "mother" instead of "birthing parent" does affect? Did I get this across properly?

            Does the form saying "birthing parent" impact "mothers" negatively?
            Does the form saying "mother" impact "birthing parents" negatively?

            So why not change?

            • Gervais fanboy on 22/07/2022 - 13:15

              @Chandler:

              How? We're talking about changing the field on a form. Sounds to me like the ones playing victim are the ones crying about the change…

              You start your comment with a lie…(Typical)

              Qcat asked me a question earlier
              “How is it not crazy to do things in a way that includes everyone’’

              Things - Plural,
              That made it about more than one thing. I answered it accordingly.

              You start your comment with a lie…(Typical)

              Now i said that because you falsely accused me of making a ‘sexual remark’
              (https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/12431909/redir)
              I didn’t report you, cuss you or even dislikes your contemptible comment but you never even had the respect to apologise or even back peddle.
              People today throw endless wildest allegations at others, hoping for something to stick. And if it doesn’t, they just disappear like nothing ever happened.

              So I am now here having to read your long arse response to me, not the other way around.
              With an expectation to respond.
              Anyways

              Just because you've been excluded and discriminated all your life means that others should continue to be excluded and discrimated against

              Just more cretinous strawman.
              I never said that or even closely implied that.

              So to explain it, Qcat made a false assumption in his/her point that “ If something excluded you, you would probably care”

              Just for that reason, to dodge their illogical theory of why I can’t relate, I admitted to how I have experienced hardships too.
              Never said I want others to struggle or whatever ever libellous none sense of why i believe what I believe.
              You wannabe internet psychologists, lying and fabricating to reach your desired diagnosis.

              Of all people to be against changing "mother" to "birth parent"…

              That’s not discriminatory. Contrary to the left’s propaganda, only women can give birth. That’s a fact.

              • Quantumcat on 22/07/2022 - 15:06
                -1

                @Gervais fanboy:

                I admitted to how I have experienced hardships too

                Exactly - you are happy with changes against things that impact you (maybe racism, or whatever else has impacted you) but not against things that impact others. Try to have some empathy and imagine what it might be like for others who are impacted. It doesn't hurt you at all (or anyone else) so it makes no sense to be against these changes.

                • Gervais fanboy on 23/07/2022 - 01:01

                  @Quantumcat:

                  you are happy with changes against things that impact you (maybe racism or whatever else has impacted you)

                  I told you I was 26, as you know Racism/segregation was made illegal way before I was born, thanks to yours and mine parents/grandparents.
                  But as I said, discrimination and bias are a part of us. Can only be reduced but unfortunately never be fully eradicated.

                  Try to have some empathy and imagine what it might be like for others who are impacted.

                  Absolutely, discrimination is and should be illegal. Everytime I have witnessed it, I have spoken out to defend others.
                  I hope you will do the same
                  Especially, when we clearly see jobs advertised that openly favour women and people from the trans community over men, especially white men.

                  so it makes no sense to be against these changes.

                  You are right, sometimes that is indeed the case but not everytime.
                  On that topic, I had asked you about the compelled speech laws in Canada. That too was introduced on the predication that it doesn’t ‘affect anyone’ else…
                  You never responded to me on that.

              • Chandler on 23/07/2022 - 00:12
                -1

                @Gervais fanboy:

                You start your comment with a lie…(Typical)

                What was the lie? And this is typical for…? (curious who you're categorising me as…)

                Things - Plural,
                That made it about more than one thing. I answered it accordingly.

                Not sure if Qcat's intention there in using the word "things" was to broaden the discussion, but that's not up to me. You have a point in that regard but - it does seem like every little snowflake is seeking concessions these days. But then who am I to say that they can't have those concessions, or that they should. I certainly will have opinions on some of them, and my opinion will always be: if it does not negatively affect anyone, why can't we make those concessions?

                Now i said that because you falsely accused me of making a ‘sexual remark’

                That "accusation" (and I can see why you would see it as such) was in comparison of your own statement ("Peeboy") to the issue you had with INeed2Pee's comment ("ultra white elite CEO's").

                I didn’t report you, cuss you or even dislikes your contemptible comment

                If you feel that my comment should be reported, do so. Let someone independent make judgement. I don't believe I have done any cussing, so I don't see how that would be necessary nor deserved. And I can't recall the rules/recommendations around disliking so won't make any statements there, although will point out like you that I haven't disliked any of your comments in that thread either.

                but you never even had the respect to apologise or even back peddle.

                Was my comparison incorrect? If not, why would I apologies or back peddle?

                So I am now here having to read your long arse response to me, not the other way around.

                I've admittedly been slow to respond to that comment (timing, life, etc), but I will. I generally try to "finish" conversations on-line (for better or worse).

                With an expectation to respond.

                No expectation here. Appreciated, certainly; but not expected.

                Just more cretinous strawman.

                I'm not up on my logical fallacies, or at least not enough to intelligently argue about them; but I certainly don't see my statement as a straw man. You brought up your own history of being discriminated against in an discussion essentially (major simplification) arguing for the continued discrimination of the "birthing parent" minority.

                I never said that or even closely implied that.

                No you didn't say that, nor was my comment a quote or implied quote - if you look at the original comment, you'll see that my statement had a question mark at the end. It was a follow on from my question "How is removing systematic exclusivity encouraging victimhood?"

                So to explain it, Qcat made a false assumption in his/her point that “ If something excluded you, you would probably care”

                I don't think Qcat's point there is completely unfair - if something doesn't affect someone, they generally are less likely care or even notice it. Reading their comment again, that statement doesn't read to me as completely aimed at you: I read it as a general statement that is at least partially aimed at you (I say partially aimed due to the comment at the end about empathy).

                Just for that reason, to dodge their illogical theory of why I can’t relate, I admitted to how I have experienced hardships too.
                Never said I want others to struggle or whatever ever libellous none sense of why i believe what I believe.

                As per my explanation above, I wasn't saying that.

                You wannabe internet psychologists, lying and fabricating to reach your desired diagnosis.

                And what is, in your opinion, my desired diagnosis?

                Contrary to the left’s propaganda, only women can give birth. That’s a fact.

                Correct, until Junior becomes reality. But…

                That’s not discriminatory.

                How is it not - not all "birth parents" are "mothers". As I already stated - surrogates? And to add to that now, how about parents putting their newborn children up for adoption? I can't imagine that process is very easy for some, and then to be filling out some paperwork and be confronted with the title of "mother" for a child you may never see again…

                So what are those "birthing parents" expected to do? Continue living with the unwanted title of "mother", or can we get a pass here to change some text on a form to be more inclusive?

                Also to cover a statement in your comment again:

                we need to change our normal long running selection criterias

                Not so long ago it was "normal" for women not to vote, or "normal" to "own" people. Hell, it is still acceptable in some cultures to oppress women, to discriminate, hurt, or even kill, minorities such as homosexuals. Just because something is "normal and long running" doesn't mean it is still acceptable.

                Now, naturally "mother" vs "birthing parent" are nothing compared to those examples; but in regards to changing that wording, who's suffering if we do change it?

            • Gervais fanboy on 22/07/2022 - 13:30
              +1

              @Chandler: See, why don't you always engage like this ?

              I am not your enemy, i am not ideologically driven. I do this as a critical thinking exercise.

              Okay, I agree.
              Without any background or any information bias.
              Mother = Birthing person. Technically yes.
              So yeah, swap them. Make it optional. Whatever.

              The reasons why I personally disagree with it is because of the actual background and the root cause of this push.
              Regardless of what QCAT falsely says here, that he/she would never admit.
              The Far left wants to replace ‘mother’ with Birthing person is because they think it’s offensive to men, trans men etc. They claim that people that aren’t women can give birth too… blah blah blah
              Now people believe what they believe in their heads, practice in their homes, it’s their right.
              But in a civil and official sense I don’t want these deluded beliefs to enabled and legitimised.
              It’s the wrong thing to do. Because it’s not true. Because otherwise this madness will never stop.

              And also btw people get offended for all sorts of reasons.
              The elite Universities (US) are planing to stop having any admission criterias for blacks because they are ‘marginalised’ groups. It’s happening because a fringe reality thought that judging blacks students against the white students is offensive and wrong.
              So, I think we need to really dial back on this ‘I am offended’ movement.

              • Quantumcat on 22/07/2022 - 15:14
                -1

                @Gervais fanboy:

                The Far left wants to replace ‘mother’ with Birthing person is because they think it’s offensive to men, trans men etc

                It isn't offensive - it is just practical. You are pro gay marriage apparently - would it also make sense for the marriage certificate to say bride's name:____ and groom's name:_____?
                No, it might say bride 1's name:_____ and bride 2's name:_____ (actually I don't know what it would say but I assume it isn't bride and groom). For marriages with a woman and a man it can still say bride and groom but for two men maybe it says groom 1 and groom 2. Would you be against that? Of course not, and why would you, it doesn't affect you. People against it say "it's destroying marriage for everyone else" which is complete nonsense as it has no effect on anyone else.

                Same here - if a trans man does give birth and wants the birth certificate to acknowledge him as the birthing parent but still be a father, what concern is it to you? When you grow up and have your own kids, the birth certificates can still say mother and father, and no one is going to break into the Births Deaths and Marriages office and scribble out "mother" on your own birth certificate and write "birthing parent". It has absolutely no effect on you so why are you stomping on other people for no gain to yourself whatsoever?

                • Gervais fanboy on 22/07/2022 - 15:55

                  @Quantumcat: I’ll give you the respect of acknowledging your comment but I would really appreciate if you either respond to

                  So you've become like the bully who endures hell at home so inflicts it on others
                  You can’t help yourself, can you ?
                  Quote/Refer me to the occasion where I bullied someone…

                  Or recant those false allegations coz I have had enough of that.

                  To your most recent cherry picked point out of my reply to Chandler :

                  You are pro gay marriage apparently

                  I don’t know mate, didn’t you call me a ‘homophobe’ earlier ?

                  marriage certificate to say bride's name:____ and groom's name:_____?
                  No, it might say bride 1's name:_____ and bride 2's name:_____ (actually I don't know what it would say but I assume it isn't bride and groom). For marriages with a woman and a man it can still say bride and groom but for two men maybe it says groom 1 and groom 2

                  Don’t know what a marriage certificate looks like.
                  I just looked one up for Australia and they all somewhat looked like this. https://wedbykez.com/your-marriage-certificate/
                  There were no bride-groom information fields listed…

                  I looked up marriage certificate USA
                  This came up
                  https://www.google.com/search?q=marriage+certificate&newwind…

                  stomping on other people for no gain to yourself whatsoever

                  I am not stomping on anyone, won’t ever stomp on anyone. Don’t worry.
                  Also, don’t get worked over my opinions and rationale.
                  I only got worked up when you started throwing false accusations at me, coz I do take those sins seriously.
                  Otherwise I don’t like you any less for what belief systems you hold.
                  Also, I am a single entity. Non-citizen. Not a influencer.
                  So my opinions mean nothing. Don’t be worried by what I think.

                  But yes, I would stomp (figuratively) on ideologies that spew nonsense and attempts to reverse factual known biology.

                  • Motek Benzona on 22/07/2022 - 16:01
                    +2

                    @Gervais fanboy: Absolute kudos on engaging a leftist in full cry, personlly i would just have told them to STFU. They lost me at calling people who ask questions transphobe. Pathetic.

              • Chandler on 23/07/2022 - 00:36

                @Gervais fanboy: Disclaimer: I wrote this comment above prior to reading this comment I'm replying to now.

                See, why don't you always engage like this ?

                I generally try to. Feel free to call me out anytime I'm being offensive, and hopefully I can explain why I don't feel what I've said was offensive, and I'll either stand my ground and tell you you're being overly sensitive (in my opinion), or apologise.

                I am not your enemy, i am not ideologically driven. I do this as a critical thinking exercise.

                Nor am I yours. Although I disagree on the ideologically driven: we're all ideologically driven, it's just some our "ideology" is more logical and less emotional (like myself, in my opinion).

                Okay, I agree.
                Without any background or any information bias.
                Mother = Birthing person. Technically yes.
                So yeah, swap them. Make it optional. Whatever.

                Thank you, and this was the angle I was coming at it from, having not seen or read any material about it prior (I don't consume much/any MSM).

                Regardless of what QCAT falsely says here, that he/she would never admit.

                Why the insistence on dragging Qcat through the mud? I generally find their comments reasonable & insightful. I think there might be one or two things they've said here I disagree with, but hardly worth the lambasting you've been giving them - in replies to my comments, no less…

                The reasons why I personally disagree with it is because of the actual background and the root cause of this push.
                …
                The Far left wants to replace ‘mother’ with Birthing person is because they think it’s offensive to men, trans men etc. They claim that people that aren’t women can give birth too… blah blah blah

                I can see why you'd disagree with the agenda behind it, and I personally find seeking that sort of change to suit men/trans men a bit of a stretch (not from you), but again: who's suffering from the change? Even if it was solely for men/trans men - I'd personally find it ridiculous, but I would not be launching any sort of campaign against it, as it's not hurting anyone.

                But then looking at it again from that angle, it's not so ridiculous. Same as I made the argument for surrogates etc not wanting to be called "mother", the same argument could be made for trans men not wanting someone else to take their title of "mother". Yes, they didn't give birth to the child (because, like you rightly said that's a biological impossibility at present), but that doesn't mean they can't be the child's "mother". So why should someone else get to take that title from them?

                Now people believe what they believe in their heads, practice in their homes, it’s their right.
                But in a civil and official sense I don’t want these deluded beliefs to enabled and legitimised.
                It’s the wrong thing to do. Because it’s not true. Because otherwise this madness will never stop.

                I think I've made my point on the specific issue of "birthing parent", and I get your point here (even though it's a bit of a slippery slope argument).

                And also btw people get offended for all sorts of reasons.
                The elite Universities (US) are planing to stop having any admission criterias for blacks because they are ‘marginalised’ groups. It’s happening because a fringe reality thought that judging blacks students against the white students is offensive and wrong.
                So, I think we need to really dial back on this ‘I am offended’ movement.

                Perhaps, and it does seem at times that some people are using legitimate concerns to push agendas further than they would/should otherwise. But I think some groups also discredit them too quickly, like I believe you did in this specific case. Again, I understand some of the concerns, but I believe every case should get considered on it's merit, and not it's peddler.

                because a fringe reality thought that judging blacks students against the white students is offensive and wrong.

                That's not necessarily incorrect. Is it fair to judge the worthiness of blacks to get admitted against whites whom have a significant advantage? There is generally still significant disparity between whites and blacks especially in education & economically, which would put them at a disadvantage in applying to enter university against whites who had no such disadvantage, or at the very least to a lesser degree. Having said all that, I don't think that warrants the complete removal of admission criteria, but I certainly believe that any disadvantage should be taken into account, otherwise that disparity will continue to exist and be self-sustaining: blacks can't get into university due to lack of education - certainly sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. Remember also, we're talking about the US here, so it's dialled to 11 already…

    • Chandler on 22/07/2022 - 09:54
      +2

      Similar for surrogate births. The "birthing "parent"" may not be the "mother" of the child.

    • jakka on 22/07/2022 - 19:52
      +1

      Then add birthing mother to the form, not birthing parent.

      • Quantumcat on 22/07/2022 - 20:32

        A surrogate wouldn't consider themselves a mother. And in the very rare case of a trans man giving birth, they would consider themselves a father.

  • morse on 21/07/2022 - 20:28
    +4

    Perhaps birth certificates can go further whereby it acknowledges whatever the circumstance i.e. birth mother and father and if either person is transgender, or in a same sex relationship, adjusting accordingly and where adoption is from birth eg through surrogacy or some other arrangement, this also has a formal spot on the birth certificate.

    There’s no need for this to be divisive. There’s absolutely room to have traditional birth certificates as well as those that reflect different circumstances.

    • ozhunter on 22/07/2022 - 14:49
      -2

      Should just have like an additional notes section at the bottom for those unfortunate kids born outside the norm.

      eg. both parents consider themselves mothers but one is a biological man and the male parent.

      • morse on 22/07/2022 - 15:04

        How would that be helpful?

        • ozhunter on 23/07/2022 - 19:03

          It would let the person needing that info know.

          Could change the birthing parent to biological mother(as the term doesn't seem to be hijacked for now) as that seems to be the information they are seeking.

  • CheapskateQueen on 21/07/2022 - 21:30
    +5

    it's all gone too freaking far.

    There's a trans man that gave birth; but getting pregnant and giving birth are inherently female features. It is part of the identity of being a woman. What I struggle to understand is if you identify as a man, why are you doing something that is inherently female? I really struggle to look at pictures of a pregnant man.

    That's one thing, now I'm seeing they are experimenting with using science and medicine to help trans women lactate to feed babies! The bodies of males were not designed to lactate and feed babies and i can't believe we're now at the point of this.

    • Gervais fanboy on 21/07/2022 - 22:08
      +6

      I mean what’s the point to spend your time and express your points.

      When these supposed ‘liberals’ will never engage with you, won’t debate their ideas with yours, even when they do they’ll slander you and then stop replying because they can’t defend their ‘ideologically driven ideas’. They are nothing but a bunch of weasels that will sneakily report you, dislike your comments and revel in their ignorance thinking they are the rational ones.
      And I used to think people back in the day were more stupid for ever contemplating tyrannical ideas, becoming communists. But no, stupidity transcends time and only multiplies.

  • peppet on 21/07/2022 - 21:48
    +1

    What was the reason people need to know who the "birthing parent" is (outside the form in question, as people want this to be the general new term for mothers)? Genetics, care? The semantics of this whole thing are very confusing, I don't think anyone really knows the extent of what they're arguing for. I'd feel pretty crappy being referred to as my child's birthing parent.

  • [Deactivated] on 21/07/2022 - 22:07
    +1

    Some things I support are:
    1. Gay marriage. The right to be as miserable as straight married people lol

    I'm not sure you've thought this through.

    Either you support redefinitions of fundamental social terms like "marriage", "woman", and "mother"… or you don't.

    Marriage was never gay. Ever. Not even in Roman times. You can call a homosexual union by another name, but it was never marriage.

    So once you throw that word on the bonfire you don't get to suddenly say "whoah whoah we've gone too far". If you've pushed for extreme wokeness in the past don't start crying about it now. Embrace the fact that nothing you ever knew, or anything that was passed on to you from your forefathers, will hold true tomorrow.

    If you want to argue you support homosexual unions - that's a different issue altogether - and you could have picked a new word for this and legal protections and what-not - but once you start twisting words everybody used to understand implicitly then you've lost all right to complain when everything else you ever knew gets turned upside down.

    • Gervais fanboy on 21/07/2022 - 22:14

      Well ‘marriage’ isn’t a biological determinant.
      It’s a traditional setup that’s served us well for centuries.
      So it’s comparatively easier to adjust it as it’s only based on beliefs and tradition.
      Plus the golden rule of allowing two consenting adults the right to choose their lifestyles as long as they don’t impede on yours.

      Gender, sex, ‘giving birth’ are biologically defined..
      Hence the greater push to retain those ‘factual’ beliefs.

      Please don’t see everything through the lenses of woke mob running a muck. Everyone’s allowed to receive a fair considertion in this shared society that we live in.

      I hope you can see the difference between the two facets of contention that you have raised here.

      • [Deactivated] on 21/07/2022 - 22:21
        +1

        Well ‘marriage’ isn’t a biological determinant.

        Huh?

        Biology is fundamental in determining whether one is a man or a woman - and is directly related to marriage as a result.

        So it’s comparatively easier to adjust it as it’s only based on beliefs and tradition.

        Huh?

        How are children conceived? You can't just conveniently skip over basic biology to justify your extreme hyper-woke propaganda. Especially when you bring up biology yourself.

        Plus the golden rule of allowing two consenting adults the right to choose their lifestyles as long as they don’t impede on yours.

        What's that got to do with marriage? Marriage has never prevented two consenting adults the right to choose their lifestyle.

        I'm not sure you have any idea what point you're trying to make.

        • Gervais fanboy on 21/07/2022 - 23:11

          Huh?
          Biology is fundamental in determining whether one is a man or a woman - and is directly related to marriage as a result.

          Well, that wouldn’t be the case if you could open the norms of marriage to people of the same gender.
          As ‘marriage’ in itself is a man-made tradition, a societal construct.. We have had many social traditions that no longer exist or have been since improvised.

          One’s sex though is purely based on science and has been so since the beginning of time.. unchanged and unchallenged (until recently of course).

          So one’s a tradition, one’s a fact.
          Two different things. I am surprised I have had to twice explain myself to you.

          What's that got to do with marriage? Marriage has never prevented two consenting adults the right to choose their lifestyle.

          So, the point I was trying to make was that if a homosexual couple wants to participate in a marriage, they should have the right to do so… There’s no valid reason for you and I to object to that.
          Unless you are religious and want to obey its literature, I can sort of understand that.

  • Brian McGee on 21/07/2022 - 22:26
    +3

    Passports should display the gender you actually are, not the one you feel like being this week. If you have transitioned surgically to the opposite sex then that should be on your documents. Otherwise it’s chaos of male, unicorn, ‘72 torana, spirit volcano.

    • morse on 22/07/2022 - 07:24

      I sincerely hope no one checks to see if my genitals match my passport next time I go through the airport.

      • Brian McGee on 22/07/2022 - 07:35

        I didn't say they need to check, but they will probably see when you go through the xray. but it should match.

  • hasher22 on 21/07/2022 - 23:11

    Can the form just say "parent's name"?

  • witheredcouch on 22/07/2022 - 09:04
    +3

    I am so surprised this is such a controversial topic. I clearly live in my own social bubble and would have assumed "Birthing Parent" only acts as a more inclusive term and doesn't take anything away from anyone. But obviously it is a more complex matter and maybe there should be more options. What about situations where an individual acts as a surrogate for someone else, they may be more comfortable being referred to as "Birthing Parent" than the implications "Mother" has when the kid is not staying in their life.

    • Sleeqb7 on 22/07/2022 - 10:23
      +2

      I agree with you.

      It's baffling to me that people give a crap. Nobody is trying to remove the word 'mother', they're just trying to make paperwork for a medical procedure make sense in more situations.

      • Gervais fanboy on 22/07/2022 - 11:18

        It's baffling to me that people give a crap.

        Why don’t you flip this question to the woke mob and ask them why do they care if we just call the mother a mother.
        But care you about that fraction more than the others,
        Hmm, double standards ?

        they're just trying to make paperwork for a medical procedure

        But you saw my comment up top, the push comes from the notion that all genders are capable of giving birth.
        That’s some psuedo science, why shouldn’t people care about some make belief non sense.

        more situations.

        More like, trying to make some sense for the .01% by altering the reality of the 99.99%

        • witheredcouch on 22/07/2022 - 11:47
          +1

          I think they should have both. A birthing parent is always a birthing parent, but a birthing parent is not always a mother. There is no reason for this to be controversial as it is all about making people feel included.

          • Gervais fanboy on 22/07/2022 - 13:41

            @witheredcouch:

            A birthing parent is always a birthing parent, but a birthing parent is not always a mother.

            Technically made correct because of a .01% minority but yes correct, nonetheless.

            There is no reason for this to be controversial

            It’s made controversial by the ones propagating for it and in their beliefs of how it’s offensive to other millions genders, as they believe that people who aren’t women can also give birth.
            This is factually wrong and shouldn’t be enabled.
            Btw there’s groups bigger than .01% in our society that don’t ask for the whole system to be changed over such such such minimal things.
            Imagine being offended over mistakenly being called a ‘mother’. ( that’ll only happen in like one in a million cases)
            Is that who we are protecting here ?

        • Sleeqb7 on 22/07/2022 - 12:23
          +2

          Hey comrade, I actually didn't see your comment up top, I've had you blocked for several months.

          Not all people who give birth keep the baby, thus not how everyone would describe a mother.
          Surrogacy exists, also not how people would describe a mother.
          In a lesbian relationship both are the mother, but now we require additional information to determine who was medically responsible for expelling the child from their uterus.

          I don't see anyone saying that males can give birth, I don't see anyone saying that we should remove the 'mother' from the language, I don't see anyone saying this should be forced on 100% of birth certificates.
          Making something like this optional means that a small percentage of people are less put out. How does it affect anyone else?
          It's like saying that legalising gay marriage discriminates against straight people, it doesn't make sense.

          • Gervais fanboy on 22/07/2022 - 13:48

            @Sleeqb7:

            Hey comrade

            Hey mate

            I actually didn't see your comment up top

            Hmm, you ‘didn’t see’ my comment and yet you liked the reply from QCat (https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/12439453/redir) to that comment of mine that you ‘didn’t see’.
            So much for integrity, huh ?

            Imagine someone like that discussing and supporting a social issue.
            Wow

            I've had you blocked for several months.

            Great 👍🏻
            Did me a favour,

            Revel in your personal eco chambers.

            Not all people who give birth keep the baby, thus not how everyone would describe a mother.
            Surrogacy exists, also not how people would describe a mother.
            In a lesbian relationship both are the mother, but now we require additional information to determine who was medically responsible for expelling the child from their uterus.

            Don’t know what you are on about. I didn’t disagree with it.
            In my reply to you, I mentioned the “0.01” for this exact exception that I knew you were gonna later pull.

            < I don't see anyone saying that males can give birth, I don't see anyone saying that we should remove the 'mother' from the language, I don't see anyone saying this should be forced on 100% of birth certificates.

            Yes they are and I did cover that in my comment ‘that you didn’t see’..

            • Sleeqb7 on 22/07/2022 - 14:51

              @Gervais fanboy: I read QCat's comment responding to "Comment blocked. Show" and agreed with their viewpoint. They had quoted enough for me to be confident in my +1 :)
              I've got you blocked because, much as you've demonstrated in your two responses to me, you're intent on goading people. You've even gone to the effort of goading me into specifying people this change could benefit for some reason. You could discuss the facts without being so provocative or inflammatory, but you opt not to.

              I've had a scroll up and looked at your comment and to be honest you've been suuuuuuper active in this thread. The one I found that may constitute a source for what you're referencing is 7 News and the Daily Mail? And you're suggesting I'm in an echo chamber? Pot, kettle, etc.

              You've clearly made up your mind, I don't see any benefit in continuing to respond. Have a good night.

              • Gervais fanboy on 22/07/2022 - 15:33
                +1

                @Sleeqb7:

                "Comment blocked. Show" and agreed with their viewpoint

                Cheers, didn’t know what blocked comments looked like. Coz I don’t block people that think differently to me.

                They had quoted enough for me

                Well the comment that I had referenced to from QCAT (https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/12439453/redir) didn’t quote anything from my original reply ( the one you ‘didn’t see’).
                You are getting caught in your own web of…..
                Truth is, as I have just figured it out. You either did click on ‘Show’ and actually read my comment and later falsely claimed that you ‘didn’t see’ it.
                Or you never saw my comment or read my opinions but you liked QCAT’s reply to me anyways
                Either way, it doesn’t look for your integrity.
                But you can always claim to be ‘nice’ by playing this virtue game.
                Right on comrade 👍🏻

                I've got you blocked because, much as you've demonstrated in your two responses to me, you're intent on goading people.

                Never asked you as to why you blocked me. Don’t care
                You decide to indulge in it anyways ?

                Well, you said that you blocked me months ago and you are then citing two comments from today to make the case I like to goad people.
                Whatever

                You could discuss the facts without being so provocative or inflammatory, but you opt not to.

                I was nice until people started calling me a ‘racist’, ‘transphobe’, people started making assumptions about my dad beating me up etc

                Anyways, I don’t think I was goading you except for the part where you disingenuously said ‘you didn’t see’ my comment.
                I have already explained above, as to why I found that dubious.

                you're referencing is 7 News and the Daily Mail? And you're suggesting I'm in an echo chamber? Pot, kettle, etc.

                QCAT, asked me for a reference.
                I googled and those two articles came up top.
                I don’t watch channel 7, I don’t subscribe to Daily Mail (except for their soccer coverage)
                Also, I don’t know what rock you are living under mate.
                Channel 7 and Daily Mail are proper mainstream left leaning publications.

                If I had shared like a Sky news Australia or a Fox News article, you could have maybe maybe made that forced ‘eco chamber’ payback thing you did. (Btw I don’t listen to them either)
                But Channel 7 and Daily Mail ?

                R U OK ?

                You've clearly made up your mind, I don't see any benefit in continuing to respond

                Hahahaha, says the person who blocks people with contrary beliefs to them.
                The irony….. right over your head.

                Have a good night.

                Bit early for that
                But sure, a very good night to you too..

      • Eatslikeacat on 22/07/2022 - 11:42
        +1

        Ummm, they did remove the word mother and replaced it with birthing parent. They didn't try, they did.

        • Sleeqb7 on 22/07/2022 - 11:56

          I thought it was obvious from the context that I meant "Nobody is trying to remove the word mother from the English language" rather than an "Nobody is trying to have the totally optional choice to remove the word mother from a single bureaucratic document". Which is what they did in 3 hospitals as a trial.

          • Eatslikeacat on 22/07/2022 - 21:49

            @Sleeqb7: In an alternate reality this is the likely scenario.
            1. Bill Shorten does not intervene.
            2. Faceless bureaucrats declare the trial a success and roll it out to all hospitals.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join