Australia has a Ministry of Truth... eh... I mean, Sex Discrimination Commissioner. She's one Anna Cody.
She has been recently interrogated in Australia's senate about her role and what the "Sex Discrimination Act" is about, and she is apparently incapable of answering even the most basic questions, is completely confused, gives completely self-contradictory answers, and doesn't even seem to know what exactly she is supposed to do. The sheer level of incompetence and ignorance is astonishing. And apparently she has a doctorate of some kind.
For example, when she was asked to define "man" and "woman", which is precisely under the core purview of the Sex Discrimination act and her very job, she repeatedly could not answer. When pressed about it, she gave this absolutely gem of an answer:
"The Sex Discrimination Act does not define 'man' or 'woman'. It has an inclusive definition of 'women' that includes all women. So that's first nations women, women from culturally and racially marginalized backgrounds, transwomen, lesbians, women with disabilities."
That's quite literally the funniest and most hilarious thing I have heard in a good while. Let's unpack it:
So the Sex Discrimination Act does not define what a "woman" is, but it does have a definition of "women". So which is it? It doesn't have a definition, or it does have a definition?
And not only does it have a definition of "women", but that definition includes all women!
Well, one would hope so. Would be a strange definition if it didn't include all of them, now wouldn't it?
But, of course, that's still not the definition. That's just an assertion of who the definition includes. But to clarify, she then specifically explains who are included in this "all women" category that the definition includes:
"First nations women, women from culturally and racially marginalized backgrounds, transwomen, lesbians, women with disabilities."
And that's it. The fact that this is a complete list is emphasized by there not being any expression like "among others", or "etc", and even her tone of voice when she speaks that sentence has a tone of finality at the last word (you can clearly hear it if you watch the video).
That list is hilariously circular because you can't use the word you are defining in the definition itself. It's like saying that "the definition of 'car' includes all cars, such as big cars, small cars, red cars, blue cars." The term "car" is still left undefined.
But that's not even the worst part of that list. Apparently the definition of "women" (that the Act both doesn't and does have at the same time) includes "all women", except that it only includes some women, not all of them. The list of "women" is quite limited and specific, and quite notably does not include any women who do not fit in the categories in the list. Just goes to show, once again, that the leftist buzzword "inclusive" means the exact opposite.
So the Act does not have a definition, but simultaneously does have a definition. And that definition includes all women, except that it doesn't include all women. And the definition is "inclusive", yet only includes a small part of the group.
To be fair, I know what she is trying to say (she is trying to list people who are covered by the protections of the Act), but she is so utterly incompetent that she doesn't even understand the terminology and vocabulary at hand. She genuinely does not seem to understand what the word "woman" means and refers to, and her concept of it seems to be fuzzy and constantly shift depending on how confused she is at any given moment. She refuses to understand or acknowledge any traditional or biological definition of "woman", and then proceeds to use that word with a fuzzy meaning like "minorities who are covered by the protections granted by this Act", without having the ability and competence of expressing that.
This "Commissioner" is a complete joke. A complete clown.
Comments
Post a Comment