Jasmine Sussex, a mother and 15-year veteran working for the Australian Breastfeeding Association, has joined a growing list of professionals persecuted for wrong-think.
The mother-to-mother support counsellor said she was dumped from her position in early May after the ABA declared her professional, and social media use of the terms “mother” and “breastfeeding” were “hate speech.”
Feminist Legal recounted that ABA let Sussex go because of an alleged breach of their ‘code of ethics.’
The ABA claimed that by insisting on using factual biological terms, Sussex had ‘discriminated against’ the LGBTQ+ ‘on the basis of their gender identity.’
Sussex told 2GB’s Ben Fordham, “95% of breastfeeding councillors within the ABA use “mother” every single time they speak to a mother, and that is our language. We all know only mums can breastfeed.”
Asked what caused the outrage, Sussex replied, “It was a consultation about gender-inclusive language, which was really pushed on the association by one of the branch presidents who thinks the Australian Breastfeeding Association should be the Parenting Nutrition Association.”
She added, “This consultation led to a whole load of complaints against people who said we should stick with mother-to-mother language, and not adopt gender-neutral language, which erases mums.”
Sussex explained, it all started “18 months ago, and just kept escalating.”
Escalate it has. News of Sussex’s persecution is going global.
GBN carried the story, as did the dubious Daily Mail, with GBN reporting that the Australian Breastfeeding Association has denied disciplining Sussex for using the word “mother” or “mum.”
Women’s Forum Australia responded in a well-written article criticising the ABA.
The WFA accused the ABA of “ignoring the significance of biological sex,” and of allowing an “ideological” overthrow of the organisation by a minority.
They called the move from sex-specific language to LGBTQ+ “safe-speak”, an expression of “willful blindness”, adding that the ABA was advocating an ideology that is irreconcilable with biology – “the functions of the female body” – and that the attempt to ditch “mother”, “breastfeeding” and “breast milk”, betrayed the core principles of the organisation.
WFA explained, “ABA’s training now requires counsellors to offer support to biological males who identify as mothers in their efforts to lactate.”
In a poignant add-on, the WF described the ABA’s LGBTQ+ revolution as harmful to biological women, because it opens the door for biological men, who identify as breastfeeding mothers to participate in breastfeeding classes.
“The presence of biological males would obviously have the effect of inhibiting discussion in a group where women need to speak freely about female bodily functions and where practical demonstrations might involve baring their breasts,” they said.
Stating that “sex-specific language is vital for clear communication,” Women’s Forum Australia condemned the “inclusion” as being “clearly beyond the “one-to-one” counselling envisaged for the Rainbow Families brochure – it begins to compromise the ABA’s ability to minister to its principal target audience.”
At this, WFA concluded, “Sussex is right to point out that in all sorts of ways, when gender ideology takes precedence, women lose out.”
In a letter to World Nutrition Journal, Jasmine Sussex (PDF), explained, “When you “include” gender identity politics as a relevant consideration for breastfeeding, you risk excluding mothers from breastfeeding […] When breastfeeding is treated as a rainbow human rights issue, the ability to critically think about the health and support needs of mothers and babies rapidly declines.”
The letter raises concerns about ‘authoritarian top-down implementation’ of the LGBTQ+ political religion’s reality-bending “safe-speak.”
Most notable is Sussex’s point about how such assimilation with the LGBTQ+ ‘goes against the ABA’s code of ethics.’
The code ‘prohibits volunteers from using the association to further other personal causes, political or religious views.’
Sussex said, seven volunteers from four states and territories were ‘targeted for formal disciplinary complaints by fellow volunteers’ because they refused to throw out “mother-to-mother” language and use LGBTQ+ “safe-speak.”
They insisted, ‘only [biological] women, no matter how they identify, should be supported to breastfeed and that babies have a right to their mother’s milk.’
For their defiance, the seven were ‘were called bigots, bullies, or TERF’s –Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists.’
Among the well-argued reasons within her letter to the editor Sussex asserted that use of “pregnant people” and “chestfeeding” are an unsupportable ‘linguistic falsehood.’
She also freely spoke about concerns regarding ‘radical mastectomy surgeries on minors.’
Sussex then discussed how the rise in de-transition cases are indicating an epidemic of young women, who will no longer be able to breastfeed their child, should they even be able to have children, after having their bodies mutilated, and filled with chemicals.
Pro-science group, Binary have backed the former ABA mother-to-mother counsellor.
Responding to a request for comment, Kirralie Smith, Binary’s director told Caldron Pool, “Words matter. Mother is a glorious word that is understood and revered in all cultures. Men are not mothers because biology matters. Men have an equally valuable role as fathers, but they can never be mothers.”
Kirralie added, “For the ABA to suggest, and impose, a redefinition of the word mother is ridiculous. It is a massive insult to our intelligence. These extremists deny science and reject reality. Mothers deserve better than radical activism when they are seeking support to nourish and grow their precious babies.”
Sussex joins a glowing list of persecuted professionals cancelled by radical leftists for following the science, and not leftist manipulative propaganda.
Some high-profile examples include Dr. Jereth Kok, Dr. Peter Ridd, Dr. Judith Curry, Roger Scruton, Bernie Finn, and on the peripheral edge, Israel Folau, Margaret Court etc.
The Australian Breastfeeding Association is part of a social engineering trend carried out by proxy, as employers militantly scour social media use to punish employees who won’t back the LGBTQ+ “assimilated,” and their liberty-killing “new normal.”
Employers appear to be increasingly fearful; ready to hide their “I was just following orders” behind “codes of conduct” in order to protect their LGBTQ+ “ally” status.
This avoids triggering vicious smear campaigns from well-funded, hive-minded, militant activists who have no problems with destroying lives or disrupting businesses, as long as it serves the cause of replacing free speech with speech they can control.
The enforcement of LGBTQ+ “safe speech,” as arbitrarily defined by LGBTQ+ lobby groups, is testimony to how most employers are held hostage by a protected political class, whose utopian goals, if left unopposed, are undoubtedly dragging us into a dystopian future.
Their message is, as it’s always been: “fall-in, line-up, jackboot march in unison and salute, or else!”