Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

But the self-confessed atheist does now believe in souls!

Julia Gillard was Australia’s first, and only, female Prime Minister. But don’t expect her to stand up for women’s rights. She pretends not to even know what women are.

The former PM was asked at a recent event, “What is a woman?”

Hilarity ensued.

Hemming and Hawing

Gillard replied:

“I um, I’m very happy to answer your question, but…”

Spoiler alert: Gillard is about to speak for almost five minutes without answering the question.

“I, I do work that, and, and I should just say that I, um, spend half of each year in the UK. And in the UK this has turned into a kind of got you parlour game.

No, it’s not a parlour game, Ms Gillard. The question is a test of your integrity.

And, like all the other lying, dishonest, self-serving, spineless cowards who pass for politicians these days, she fails miserably.

“So if you’re listening to the radio, um, you, literally there’ll be some person on there from London City Council who’s trying to tell you why the traffic’s not going to flow well that day and, um, the journo will be saying ‘Can you tell me what a woman is?’ to try and create these got you moments.

Ignoring for a moment that the London City Council does not exist and that the anecdote she gave never actually happened, Gillard is attempting to frame the question as unserious so that she does not have to answer it.

“And I think we’ve just got to move away from all of that,” she said.

The problem, you see, is not men identifying as women. No, no. The problem is women worrying about it.

And Gillard is hailed as a champion of women?

What a joke!

Too Complex

And just come at this from, once again, first principles and say to ourselves…

When Gillard mentioned “first principles”, I had fleeting hope she meant truth.

A woman is an adult human female, easily distinguished from men by her female genitals and ability to gestate and give birth. See how easy that was? And I didn’t even have to mention UK traffic.

But no:

“ … we as a community, full of people with diverse stories and diverse life experiences, amongst that rich diversity which is powerful there are, ah, a number of people who genuinely believe that they are trapped in the wrong body, and they want to be recognised as the gender their mind, mind and soul have always told them they are.

So, no ‘first principles’. Just no coherent answer. And no principles at all.

Gillard, an atheist, says “diversity” a bunch of times and then refers to a gendered “soul”, at which point it’s a wonder the audience didn’t fall off their chair in fits of laughter.

A man who believes himself to be “trapped in the wrong body” is an example of “rich diversity”? Diversity includes deception now? Really?

I would have thought women were diverse enough on their own without needing male fantasists to complete the picture. But that’s just me.

Gillard helpfully explains:

“And it doesn’t go one way, it goes both ways. Um, you know, ah, ah, people who have transition from men to being women, and women who have transitioned to being men.”

Well, that’s very rich diversity indeed!

“And I think we’ve just got to say, like we want to show everyone else in the community, ah, love, inclusion and respect, we should do that for each of those individuals.”

Great. We get it.

But what is a woman?

Inconsequential

Gillard waffles on:

“And then, there are a set of issues that need to be thought through. About, ah, ah, prison arrangements, about fairness in elite sport, ah, those sorts of things.”

Really? Women’s sports and women’s prisons are the only problems with men identifying as women?

That we’re up to thinking about and working through, ah, if we try and if we try and do it inclusively. Ah, and, you know, most people in their lives, um, won’t, ah, end up playing elite sport. Most people in their lives won’t end up in prison. Um, most people in their lives will encounter at some point, um, someone who is, ah, a transexual person. I think what really counts is the openness and the spirit of inclusion about the way you encounter them.

I love this. Since I won’t play elite sport and since it’s highly unlikely I will ever be sent to prison, I don’t need to worry about women’s issues because they will never affect me!

Gillard is no champion of women. It’s okay for a powerful woman like her to throw powerless women — like those in jail for instance — under her politically correct bus because they’re not like “most people”.

Yep, she really did say don’t worry about basic fairness or about the most marginalised in society because, well, it’ll never affect you.

And I love how she pivots so easily from ‘most people won’t play elite sport’ or ‘be in prison’ to ‘most people will encounter trans people’.

We know Gillard is a woman because, clearly, she has no balls.

“And I having, ah, certainly, um, met and known, appeared on stage with, um, ah, transexual women, ah, believe that part of that inclusion is referring to them the way they want to be referred to, suing the pronouns that they want to be, want to have used about them.

It’s a completely disingenuous response. This is not just about “pronouns” but a genuine and significant clash of rights in which women’s rights, as usual, are being required to take a back seat to men’s.

“I would seek to do that in that circumstance. I would seek to do it, ah, when I was meeting people from an ethnically diverse background if there was a particular way they wanted to be referred to, to have their ethnicity referred to, then I would adopt that way and so the list goes on.

Referring to my son as Ethiopian because he is Ethiopian is not the same as referring to my son as a woman because he imagines his penis to be where his vagina should be.

“And I think we we can do all of that we can take the temperature out of this. And I think the temperature is being created for political reasons, not because it’s inherent in the discussion.”

But the fact that Australia’s first female Prime Minister doesn’t appear to know what a woman is. Which begs the question, how can we be sure she really was our nation’s first female PM?

When she said, “I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man”, what did she mean?

Speaking of which, what’s most amazing is that the Prime Minister most famous for a speech railing against misogyny has given such a non-answer to the question of what is a woman.

Perhaps Julia Gillard does need Tony Abbott to lecture her after all.

___

Originally published at The James Macpherson Report.

Subscribe to his Substack here for daily witty commentary.
Photo: Russell Watkins/Wikimedia Commons