GAMES OF: WEAK GENDER POLITICS

Gender being used to hinder debate by supporters

There was a time - not long ago - when you could call a comment/decision obstructionist and irresponsible and everyone understood what you meant: You thought it was… obstructionist and irresponsible.

Simple.

But welcome to attempts by commentators aimed at downgrading local debate, where before offering an opinion you must now first conduct a demographic audit of the voting cohort.

Here’s how it apparently works now:

• Step 1: Hear the decision

• Step 2: Check who voted for it

• Step 3: Run your adjectives through a gender-sensitivity filter

• Step 4: Replace anything remotely sharp with something that sounds like a wellness seminar

Because in this brave new world, describing a delay and rebuild as obstructionist and irresponsible is no longer about the decision - it’s about whether the words might accidentally collide with the gender of the people who voted that way.

Let’s follow the logic.

Four women vote against a deed. Someone says the outcome is obstructionist and irresponsible.

Conclusion? Clearly, this is about gender.

Not about:

• stopping a process mid-stream

• throwing out an agreement

• starting again from scratch

No, no that’s far too complicated.

Much easier to conclude that adjectives are now identity-sensitive instruments and must be handled with care. Of course, this creates some practical challenges.

If four men had voted the same way, we’d be free to say:

• obstructionist

• irresponsible

• economically illiterate

• possibly asleep

But with four women? We must pivot to:

• “procedurally reflective”

• “strategically delayed”

• “courageously non-linear”

Because nothing says strong governance like carefully curated vocabulary.

And just to be clear - no one is being criticised for being women. They’re being criticised for a comments or decisions. But that’s no longer the point. The point is that once gender enters the frame - even coincidentally - the entire discussion must be gently redirected away from substance and toward tone management.

Meanwhile, the actual issue sits quietly in the corner: Is delaying and rebuilding a major Funding Deed from the ground up a good idea?

Hard to say. We’re too busy auditing adjectives.

The law, inconveniently, remains stuck in the old world.

Under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), you can’t attack someone because of their gender.

But you can absolutely say: “This decision is obstructionist and irresponsible.”

No footnote required:

(unless four women voted for it, in which case please consult Legal before speaking).

What’s really going on here is beautifully simple.

A decision gets criticised and the criticism is uncomfortable. So instead of defending the decision, we interrogate the language.

It’s not wrong, but it is totally inappropriate and outdated thinking stifling intellectual progress.

And that’s how you end up in a place where:

• The decision doesn’t get tested

• The reasoning doesn’t get defended

• The debate doesn’t get better

but the adjectives could get softer, if we don’t stand up against illogical arguments and Speaker rights in local government.