Your view: Readers have their say

Gender tirade

The weekend edition of the Chronicle is usually an informative, entertaining read.

Last weekend it left a bitter taste as it contained one of the most uninformed and prejudicial pieces of writing I have ever read.

This wasn't journalism, it was an "opinion" piece, and I get it - opinion is supposed to be irreverent, challenging and fashionably un-PC.

That is the rationale for Kate Stewart's column, presuming to fearlessly say what others don't or won't.

Last weekend, however, those "opinions" exposed an ignorant and harmful view of the world.

In talking about gender-fluidity, she demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of the topic - firstly by confusing gender-identity with sexual orientation (there is no link); secondly confusing gender-specificity with sexism; and, most seriously, linking gender-fluidity to illegal sexual fetishes.

The last point showed a lack of understanding, empathy and tolerance which, even if for tabloid effect, was distasteful and divisive.

People can be manly-men and girly-girls if they want, that is the point of gender identity - we are all free to be who we are.

Gender stereotypes affect how we see ourselves and, as such, can be damaging as well as reassuring - ponder for a minute the potential link between our high male suicide rate and the narrow, macho-male gender stereotype perpetuated in this country.

Why Ms Stewart's own identity seems so threatened by the way that others choose to identify is a mystery.

Most prejudice is born of fear and fear is born of ignorance, so perhaps some actual research might help.

Diverse people have to put up with the hetero-normative (another term to hate on) values of the majority being forced upon them, so maybe we should listen to their values and ideas occasionally, lest we become narrow-minded and oppressive.

So as Ms Stewart is happy to adhere to gender stereotypes, may I suggest that she spares us all, gets off her soapbox and does the washing instead.

NEIL BUDDLE
Gonville

PC response

Yet again, Kate Stewart is to be congratulated for her Chronicle column (December 3).

Her thoughts on the myriad of catchphrases and "buzzwords" resound with all intelligent people.

However, she has not really gone far enough with her descriptions of the constantly changing terminology with which we are required to live and which have become labels for many and diverse variations in our daily lives.

Kate has provided a platform from which to mount an attack on the world's PC attitudes towards sexuality, a subject that appears to have been taken over by persons formally described as sexually non-conformist or - in their own words - "queer".

A slight tempering down of that stigma resulted in a new meaning for the word "gay", which no longer only means happy/cheerful. I was required to do some further research.

I had been aware of an extension to the LGBT categories, but then found further letters had been added as more people required PC acceptance of their specific orientations.

I discovered a new alphabetical description, LGBTQI, which added "questioning/queer" and "intersex" to the mix.

I then located an acronym to end all acronyms - QUILTBAG - invented by rainbow community.

For those as unfamiliar with this terminology as I was, let me explain: Q=queer/questioning, U=undecided, I=intersex, L=lesbian, T=transsexual, B=bisexual, A=asexual and G=gay.

Well, that just about covers every possible sexual preference except one - heterosexual.

I looked everywhere for the letter "'H" but, alas, I drew a blank.

It then struck me like a lightning bolt - "H" had been hijacked by a few people to enhance the spelling of Wanganui.

Keep up the good work, Kate.

D PARTNER
Eastown

Weapons dealers

I don't think that your correspondent Murray Woodhouse (December 1) is being very fair to Chris Cresswell and the other protesters in Auckland at the New Zealand Navy's 75th anniversary.

He implies that there were very few protesters; in fact there were many. He implies that the conference in Auckland was more a celebration than anything else but does not say that the presence of naval ships from many countries was largely a front for a meeting of 500 of the world's largest weapons manufacturers.

In fact, the occasion was an arms trade fair and the protesters wanted to show their opposition to profiting from war and disaster.

Mr Woodhouse implies that arms manufacturers are no different from drug companies in wanting to push their wares, completely oblivious of the fact that the general aim of drug companies is to alleviate human suffering while the products of arms manufacturers are designed to kill human beings. Has he not seen, night after night on television, the human suffering in Aleppo, for example? Does he not care about the tens of thousands of civilians killed and maimed by the products of the arms manufacturers?

Despite Mr Woodhouse's claim to "respect the right of New Zealanders to protest", he gives a pretty good impression of not really believing it.

And I imagine that a man of Chris Cresswell's sincerity and integrity doesn't much like being referred to as "rent-a-crowd".

I D FERGUSON
Whanganui