Posted on 09/18/2024 6:19:57 AM PDT by Petrosius
(LifeSiteNews) — In yet another blow to free speech in Australia, Jasmine Sussex, a Victorian breastfeeding expert, is being taken to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal for saying that only females can breastfeed their babies.
Sussex argued that males who take drugs to lactate should not be experimenting on children, describing it is a “dangerous fetish.”
Her tweets about an Australian male breastfeeding his infant with a cocktail of lactose-inducing drugs was removed by X (formerly Twitter) for Australian users, although it remained visible to overseas users. The move came after requests from a “government entity or law enforcement agency”, according to Twitter. Sussex was told she had “broken the law” although it was not made clear what law that was.
Sussex was also sacked from the Australian Breastfeeding Association (ABA) for refusing to use gender neutral language. She is one of seven counsellors to be formally investigated by the ABA leadership and one of five to be sacked.
The complaint against Sussex is being brought by Queenslander Jennifer Buckley in Queensland’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Buckley was born male and later identified as a woman and “transitioned.” Buckley acted after a transgender parent complained to the Queensland Human Rights Commission.
Buckley reportedly biologically fathered a baby through IVF and is raising the child with his wife. He posted on social media about taking hormones to grow breasts, explaining: “For the past six weeks I have been taking a drug called domperidone to increase prolactin in an attempt to be able to produce breast milk so that I can have the experience of breastfeeding.”
The case is not just about suppressing a person’s right to say what most would consider to be a statement of the obvious. It raises fundamental questions about how the law is to be crafted and applied.
A legal system depends on clear semantics, the definition of words. The potential confusion that can be created by not having a clear understanding of a person’s sex was exposed in the hearing for US Supreme Court applicant Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Asked to define what a “woman” is, Jackson replied: “I can’t,” adding that she was not a biologist.
The problem here is that, if you cannot define a word, then how can you use it properly in a court of law? For example, if you do not know what a “woman” is, then how can you be said to have transitioned from a man to a woman, as Buckley is claiming?
This definitional problem has been cynically fudged by mixing up the words “gender” and “sex.” It is claimed that there are 72 genders, by implication turning the question of physical sex into a matter of identity and personal psychology. There are presumably only two sexes.
That is the kind of rhetorical move made by Buckley, who said Sussex’s comments were “hurtful” because he was looking to have “the experience of breastfeeding.” This is analogous to saying that gender differences should be reduced to matters of personal perception, not observable physical characteristics.
In that sense, Sussex and Buckley are talking past each other; the words they use do not have the same meaning. Sussex is saying that objectively only “women” can lactate naturally. It is true that with drug assistance it is possible for “men” to mimic breast feeding to a limited degree. But that is artificial. It is not natural breast feeding. Sussex, who is an experienced consultant on breast feeding, also warns there may be medical issues with “male” breastfeeding that need further examination.
Buckley is arguing that her/his personal experience (of breastfeeding) is what matters and that anyone who questions that is infringing on his rights. He wants to be understood as a “woman” who was a “man”, although he reportedly still possesses male characteristics, such as being able to father a child. This is possible because he feels that way, it is how he “identifies”. But the fact that he has to undergo drug treatment indicates that in a physical sense he is a “man”.
In law, there is always a preference for physical evidence over what people say they are thinking or feeling. The latter is often changeable and difficult to demonstrate; it is poor quality evidence. There should also be an insistence on having an unambiguous understanding of the meaning of words.
On that basis Sussex, who is being represented by the Human Rights Law Alliance, should be able to defend herself effectively. But there is little reason to have confidence in the Australian legal system. It has shown itself to be highly susceptible to politics. The bullying of people who say things once thought to be self-evident may yet continue.
The Truth is no defense before Big Brother.
2 + 2 = 5
And you WILL love Big Brother.
Good and apt 1984 reference. Sadly that’s the world we now live in. Orwell meant 1984 as a warning. The leftscum took it as a playbook.
This is some of the craziness of today’s world.
It’s considered outrageous to suggest that only women can breastfeed.
We live in a world in which some states mandate that menstrual products be in boys bathrooms in school. There too , it is said to be outrageous , to suggest that only females menstruate and would need those products.
I heard some use so-called inclusive language. And they talk about pregnant people , rather than pregnant women, Because again they don’t want to suggest that only women are the ones who could be pregnant.
Once the liberals (in all countries, not just the U.S.) trashed conservatives because we laughed at their trash “science”, they doubled down on their trash science. I’d like to see that court grab one male from the audience and have him start breastfeeding an abortion survivor for the jury.
“The Truth is no defense before Big Brother.”
By taking over the education system, they have cultivated a crop of idiots who not only want this, they want more of it.
“Perhaps a lunatic was simply a minority of one.”
― George Orwell, 1984
How many fingers, Winston?
There’s only so many prisons, with only so many beds. If more people spoke up...but they don’t.
Cases like this, which are proliferating in all the supposedly civilized nations, are very clarifying. It is now illegal to state the literal truth about biological facts. An anti science, anti rational death cult has taken over our societies. We are beyond all the previous categories we’ve been accustomed to using to define political differences- conservative versus liberal, right versus left, etc. That discourse belongs to a world that has passed away.
In the 21st century, we find ourselves back in some new, weirder version of pagan prehistory, like the time before the great flood of Noah. It turns out that the Bible has been right about everything all along.
Ain’t Liberalism wonderful.
All she needs to do is as the judge to demonstrate how/WHERE a man uses a tampon
The Backwards People are running the circus
Hope she told them “if you idiots want to beleive that men can breast feed babies, then that is your problem. The facts show that you are delusional. If you want to imprison me for stating the truth, then do so because those who refuse to stand up to tyranny deserve to be subject to it. ! I ,eave you all with this:
“Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph.” — Haile Selassie
I’m afraid you’re 100% correct.
Well Australia is off the Bucket List!
Indeed, we live in the world in which even the brilliant mind of a supreme court justice cannot define what a woman is.
According to her you really need to be a biologist to make such determinations.
The degenerates pushing this garbage had better not be complaining about Putin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.