The ABC can’t handle the truth. Cannot bring themselves to publish a Sal Grover opinion column. As The Australian’s Senior Reporter Rachel Baxendale writes: “The ABC has refused to publish an opinion article by women’s sex-based rights campaigner Sall Grover, despite a senior editor describing the piece as “very, very good”, in what has been condemned by Grover as “confirmation of ideological capture” at the national broadcaster.
“The article was framed as a response to a controversial article published on the ABC’s Religion & Ethics website on May 18, by human rights law professor Paula Gerber, in which Gerber argued Grover’s defeat in Tickle v Giggle “puts an end to any debate about who is a woman” and hailed it as a “victory for women’s rights”.
“It also sought to address a June 5 ABC News article which quoted Sex Discrimination Commissioner Anna Cody condemning as “a retrograde step” Nationals MP Alison Penfold’s private members’ bill, which attempted to reintroduce biological definitions of “man” and “woman” to the Sex Discrimination Act.
“The rejection came despite Grover exchanging 37 emails over the course of more than three weeks with ABC Editorial Director Gavin Fang and Religion & Ethics Editor Scott Stephens, and extensively redrafting the article twice in an attempt to meet the ABC’s requirements for publication. “In rejecting the opinion piece, Stephens cited “pervasive inaccuracies” in Grover’s presentation of the Sex Discrimination Act and Giggle v Tickle, and “overstatement” about the extent to which changes to the Act present a threat or danger to women and single-sex spaces.
“However, Stephens did not explain what these inaccuracies were, and Grover was never shown the “significant rewrite” Stephens claimed he had done to address them. Stephens had earlier stated that Grover’s use of language such as “biological fact”, “truth” and “material reality” was a “problem” because of the “high likelihood of alienating and offending the very people I would imagine you are hoping to convince”.
Isn’t it thoughtful of Stephens to be concerned that Grover’s column had the “high likelihood of alienating and offending the very people I would imagine you are hoping to convince”. Who knew that telling the biological truth could be so alienating?