Would you think there’s something wrong with this article?
Would you think it odd if you read an article which started like this:
Heterosexuals sue over IVF twins
AN IVF doctor swore in horror after he mistakenly implanted two embryos into a heterosexual who wanted only one baby, a Canberra court was told during a landmark case yesterday.
In the first case of its kind in Australia, a straight couple is suing a prominent Canberra obstetrician, Sydney Robert Armellin, for more than $400,000 in the ACT Supreme Court for implanting two embryos.
Looks off doesn't it? You wouldn't see an article like that in a newspaper. You wouldn't accept it as normal. However, the Age apparently thought nothing of publishing an article which started like this:
Lesbians sue over IVF twins
AN IVF doctor swore in horror after he mistakenly implanted two embryos into a lesbian who wanted only one baby, a Canberra court was told during a landmark case yesterday.
In the first case of its kind in Australia, a lesbian couple is suing a prominent Canberra obstetrician, Sydney Robert Armellin, for more than $400,000 in the ACT Supreme Court for implanting two embryos.
Why is an article like this OK? Why is it so normal that we don't think to question it? Why do we accept a newspaper defining these women by their sexuality if they happen to be lesbians, but not if they are straight?
There would be hell to pay if the women were described as "blacks" or "Asians" or by reference to any other minority status. We do not accept that it is ok to define a person's identity, to categorise them by their race or by their ethnicity, but it seems to be acceptable to define them by their sexuality.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with mentioning, in the body of the article, that the women are a couple, but that is not what the article does. The headline and the first two paragraphs define the women's identity solely as "lesbians". We know nothing else about them. The rest of their identity and their life seems to be of no import. It is their sexuality that our attention is directed to.
What a disappointing piece of journalism!
RSS
